OT- Will you participate in Earth Hour tonight??

I hadn't heard about it......
but my son and I are both out tonight, playing in the orchestra pit for his high school musical - !

You got it Elaine! Hope your feeling well these days

No....

Nope.

Elaine, Thanks, you are right! I guess it is the symbolism; maybe for younger folks it will spark some change in habits or awareness. I do all the things you listed, with the exception of the "short shower". I have always been a bath person. Though last year my joint pain was so bad I could not get in and out of the tub. Did not notice any change in my water usage/bill. I sure notice a change when I am in a bad flare though, all that flushing....

I rent so I deal with the toilet I am given. Generally I do practice "if it's yellow let it mellow; if it's brown flush it down." Though if I know I will be running back in a few minutes, the brown can mellow too! I guess our toilets get a real work out!!!

kops2da said...
NO! I don't truly believe in global warming anyway! BUT - if you want to do it - America is free! Isn't that the best part!
ElaineNY

Very interesting. I'm not so sure either. Only some 30 to 40 years ago, back in the 70s, the government was warning us about global cooling.

Oh, yes, and it takes more energy to produce those large solar panels than is saved by using them. The technology used to produce them is mature too; so it's not like we are going to figure out how to produce it at less power by making more of it.

But then it is good to be globally conscience.

I don't believe the global warming scare as much as it's a normal process for the earth to be changing on a continuum...as it did long before there were humans.

Of course, they could blame it all on dinosaur farts....

If the powers that be were so concerned, they'd actually put something into action. All talk.

When I was in grade school...a long while ago, they were talking about pollution in the rivers, in the air....OK...some things have improved, but humans in general haven't. As a matter of fact, they're worse. Scary when people are too lazy to even put litter into a garbage bin or have the urge to clean out their cars while driving.

My husband even walks across the street and picks up the garbage the people who live and park there walk past. wth?

I don't participate in a one hour show of support because I'm told to....I participate continually. Let those who don't give a crap continually do something good for an hour...big deal.

q

I think it's a good way to show kids how things can be done differently...too bad that the folks who really do need to make changes, though, probably laughed at the idea of Earth Hour. I guess those of us that do care just need to keep on doing what we're doing.

The "powers that be" DO acknowledge that global warming is a real phenomenon, attributable to human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels etc. and leading to a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions - primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. There is BROAD agreement among climate scientists that the global warming that has increased since the middle of the 20th century (since Industrialization - no coincidence!) and is attributable to human activity. In fact, the national academies of science of ALL the major industrialized countries agree on these premises. Finally, the summits, protocols, meetings and agreements related to climate change should convince most that in fact global warming is perceived as threat to our planet by the "powers that be". Trust me, most politicians would love the problem to just "disappear" as the regulations etc. related to altering emissions are widely unpopular with big business among others. Hell, by the end of his presidency, even George W Bush acknowledged that global warming was a real phenomenon and he was the biggest nay-sayer out there (he also did alot of "cover-up" work in relation to the science that was presented to his government during his leadership).

What are the repercussions of ignoring climate change? Species extinction, rising sea levels, severe weather patterns, changes in precipitation patterns and changes in agricultural yields. Pretty scary if you ask me. Even if you dont believe, dont you think it would be wise to make and support the changes "just in case"?

Subdued, small aside about solar panels. You are right, it does require energy to make solar panels. However, you are wrong about them not paying that energy back in savings over a lifetime. In fact, the energy payback time is merely 1-4 years to....I have had my panels for 15 years and counting. Also you are wrong about the technology being mature. There are many more effiecient technologies being developed every year.

Please read the science then make you decisions. Sorry to be string but this is a topic close to heart. jo

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not referring to personal payback. In the early 1990's you would have been right.....theoretically, solar panels did take more energy to produce than they saved in energy over their lifetime. However, the technology has advanced significantly. Now their ENERGY PAYBACK (ie. the time in which they return the energy used to produce them) is 1 to 4 years. So to be clear, the energy they produce after, say conservatively, 4 years, is found energy. They do not take more energy to produce than they create over a lifetime.

FYI - We do not even know what the "lifetime" of a solar panel is as the some of the first panels made are still functional. Makers warranty panels for 25 years....have you ever heard of another item for sale that has such an extensive warranty ? Why? Because they last a very, very long time.

Hi Subdued

I read your article. I could not find any reference to solar panels taking more energy to make than they will produce over their lifetime. Perhaps we are talking about different things. In my earlier post I was addressing what I thought was your assertion that solar panels do in fact take more energy to make than they will produce during their lifetime. It seems that your latest post is addressing the issue of financial cost rather than energy cost. If so, you are correct in stating that solar energy is more financially costly UP FRONT than other more conventional forms of energy. However, I do think that the writer of this article is a bit extreme in his/her estimates of those solar costs. For example, a solar system can cost $45,000 dollars just as it can cost $100,000 or more. But the only reason you would need such a system is if you wanted to use power indiscriminately. You can install a system that would require only reasonable efforts towards conservation (ie. turning off lights you are not using) for between $15,000 and 20,000. In addition, the article states that solar systems have a 20-30 year lifespan. That is not completely true. Rather some components of a system may have such a lifespan, but not all components do (such as panels). Solar systems do, however, require upkeep, new batteries etc and that does cost money. Lastly, this article fails to include the costs of say, building a coal burning plant in its calculation. I think this type of inclusion is only fair given they include the cost of "building" a solar system.

Anyhow, to me price difference at this minor level is a mote point when you factor in the fact our planet is going to crap. Actually, if you wish to be liberal in your calculations, factor in planetary cost and then some may agree that solar power is waaaaaaaay cheaper.

We could probably go on for ever, shall we call it a draw?